A recent decision of the Bombay High Court has offered much-needed guidance on the boundaries of authority under the PoSH Act. The ruling serves as a reminder that while organisations must act decisively on sexual harassment complaints, the PoSH framework cannot be stretched to address every form of workplace conflict or misconduct.
For employers, Internal Committees, and HR teams, this judgment highlights the risks of conflating statutory inquiries with broader disciplinary action.
Background to the dispute
The matter arose from a workplace conflict where a senior employee attempted to document what he perceived as frequent disruptions by certain colleagues. In doing so, he made recordings without their knowledge and escalated the issue to management.
The affected employees responded by raising complaints under the PoSH mechanism. The case was examined by the appropriate complaints committee constituted under the Act.
After conducting its inquiry, the committee concluded that the conduct in question did not fall within the legal definition of sexual harassment. Despite this, it went on to suggest corrective action against the employee for his behaviour, which was later relied upon by the employer to impose an adverse service consequence.
This sequence of actions was challenged before the High Court.
The court’s view on IC’s powers
The Bombay High Court decisively set aside the committee’s recommendations and the employer’s consequential action.
The Court clarified that:
- ICs are created by law, and their authority is limited to what the law expressly permits.
- Once an inquiry concludes that sexual harassment has not been established, the committee’s role ends with that finding.
- Issuing directions or advice on punishment for behaviour that falls outside the scope of sexual harassment exceeds the committee’s mandate.
- Employment decisions based on such overreaching recommendations cannot be sustained in law.
In essence, the Court drew a clear line between statutory redressal under PoSH and general workplace discipline.
Why this judgment is significant
In practice, ICs are often expected to resolve complex interpersonal issues at work. This ruling underscores that not every uncomfortable or inappropriate workplace situation belongs within the PoSH framework.
By reinforcing jurisdictional limits, the judgment protects:
- the integrity of the PoSH process, and
- employees from facing punitive outcomes through an inquiry mechanism not designed for that purpose.
Key takeaways for organisations
1. PoSH is not a universal remedy
Internal Committees must focus solely on assessing whether conduct meets the statutory threshold of sexual harassment. Concerns that do not meet this test cannot be converted into disciplinary recommendations under PoSH.
2. Maintain clear process separation
Where behaviour raises workplace concerns but does not qualify as sexual harassment, organisations should:
- formally close the PoSH complaint, and
- address any remaining issues through independent HR or conduct-related procedures, following principles of natural justice.
Blurring these lines increases legal exposure.
3. Be cautious with post-inquiry actions
Employers should avoid relying on PoSH inquiry reports to justify penalties if the core allegation is unsubstantiated. Courts are increasingly critical of employment actions that indirectly penalise employees through PoSH findings.
4. Strengthen IC training and decision-making
Internal Committee members need regular reinforcement on:
- limits of their statutory role
- careful drafting of findings
- avoiding commentary that could be interpreted as punitive or moralistic
5. Draft closure reports thoughtfully
A PoSH closure report should:
- clearly record the conclusion,
- avoid suggesting alternative sanctions, and
- refrain from language that could be used to justify disciplinary action outside the Act.
PoSH experts at Serein have several thousand hours of case experience. Use our knowledge to your benefit, reach out at hello@serein.in